 Hello. Welcome. Well, Davos this year began with the Indian Prime Minister telling everyone at the Penrary session that climate change is one of the major issues that all of us need to come together and try and solve. And when it comes to climate change for many years, it's already felt as if the entire planet is heading for precipice and no one is really doing anything much about it. They're trying to, their voices out there in the wilderness, but no one is stopping the planet from going over. Now, in recent times, it started to feel that efforts are being made to try and actually do something that can prevent us from going over the precipice. Is it going to be enough? Well, that's what we are really here to discuss. And more importantly, what can all of us do about it? As countries, what can we do? As companies and organizations, what can we do? As individuals, what is it that we can do? Because at the end of it, this is one thing that we're all in, we're all in it together in one form or the other. And I have to tell you, I have not seen a climate panel quite like this in a long time. Anybody who's really influential in the climate movement is here with us. And I'm going to start off by welcoming perhaps the face of the climate crisis and what we need to do about it. Not the face of the climate crisis, but what we should do. Vice President Dargore, it's a pleasure and a privilege, sir, to have you with us. Jennifer Morgan of Greenpeace, another organization that has done so much work on it. Thomas Blobel of AXA, somebody who's actually as an organization shown, you can withdraw funding from polluting companies. And is that the way really to go forward? Anand Mahindra, of course, a top industrialist, also going to be the co-chair of the Climate Action Summit. And we're going to see what possibly could happen there. Salat Khan, it's great to have you with us as well as a climate changer activist. You've fought against cold plants and had a lot to do to actually reverse cold plants from coming up in Bangladesh. So it's a pleasure to have you with us. And we've got a large number of really prominent people in the audience as well. I'm going to go to, not least, Jay Inslee, Governor of Washington, perhaps one of the most influential politicians in the United States, who's really doing all he possibly can to try and reverse the trajectory that the US seems to be on to some extent right now and what the states can do to try and fix that. And let's hope you do get that carbon tax through. So thank you all so much for joining us. If I could just try and set the state for what we should try and do. Let's start off by trying to establish where exactly are we? Where are we headed to? Is it 3.2% degrees? Is that what we are trying to do about it? What's the state of play? And then what can all of us do to try and fix it? Finally, what might technology be able to do when we get a technological solution before we can actually fix it? Maybe an AI coming in to fix it, but it could be something more mundane than that as well. Vice President Gov, why don't I start off with you? Where are we? Well, thank you, Vikram. That was a great setup. And before I answer your question, I want to underscore your recognition of Governor Jay Inslee from the state of Washington, not to be too US centric, but you know, our president's going to speak here tomorrow. And I have no comment on that. But I will say this that several governors of our largest states, hundreds of cities and thousands of US businesses are now ensuring that the US will not only meet but exceed the commitments it made under the Paris Agreement. And Jay Inslee has been a preeminent leader in that movement. And he's the only governor who came over to this meeting to hold the flag and say we're still in. So I wanted to thank him for that. And the US, by the way, can't legally leave the Paris Agreement until the day after the next presidential election anyway, legally. And if there's a new president, excuse me a moment, there will be a new president could give 30 days notice and we will be back in the agreement. So where are we? From the beginning of this struggle to solve the climate crisis, and the steadily increasing awareness that this is an existential threat to the survival of human civilization, the challenge has been that the maximum that's politically feasible has fallen well short of the minimum that will really solve the crisis. So what do you do in that condition? You keep trying and you expand the limits of what is politically feasible. The Paris Agreement was a fantastic and historic breakthrough. Every nation in the world committed to go to net zero global warming pollution by mid century. It's fantastic. But you add up all the specific commitments of all the nations that agree, it's still fall short of what's necessary to stay below two degrees or one and a half degrees, the aspirational goal. However, and this is the real purpose for this step up meeting, the Paris Agreement requires every nation that signed it to make a comprehensive review of their commitments every five years. That process for 2020 starts this year. And that's why the World Economic Forum is putting such a focus on it. Because the cost reduction curves will talk about technology toward the end of this session. But we have a lot going for us. The technologists and the business leaders are finding that there are amazing advances in solar energy and wind energy batteries, electric vehicles, efficiency. So we can increase the commitments. But what's needed is the political will to confront the the the naysayers to confront the foot draggers, the the carbon special interests that want to slow the process down, and exercise the political will to really increase these commitments. And that has to start this year for 2020. And it's worth remembering that political will is itself a renewable resource. Right. When I'm just trying to figure out the probabilities of it. When Donald Trump does speak at Davos, what's what's the possibility that he will say the US is going to do more on climate change? And zero. Why was I hoping for something different? But okay, fine. But but but a famous economist in the US in the last century, Rudy Dornbush said something very wise. He said things take longer to happen than you think they will. And then they happen much faster than you thought they could. All the social revolutions Mahatma Gandhi's revolution, Martin Luther King's revolution, you could go through the list. They've all seemed so slow and painfully slow until consciousness changed and people resolve the complexity into a simple choice between what's right and what's wrong. And then the change happened. The survival of our civilization is at stake here. And people are becoming aware of it. And the change is now beginning to accelerate. But we have to translate it into political change. Alright, Jennifer, would you be more optimistic today than you were five years ago or less optimistic? Oh, a bit of both, I have to say, I'm more optimistic because I think we are seeing a step up to some extent. And because I think the Paris Agreement and this ratchet mechanism that Vice President Gore is talking about is fundamental and gives us the ability to go to that zero carbon economy we need to go to. But I'm less optimistic when I look at the disruption. The disruption is also a positive and a negative because I think disruption is actually the new business as usual on climate. Because if you if you really look at the disruption that's happening through the different extreme weather events that have happened around the world, I mean, how many of us are living in places that are being impacted? The science that's coming in on attribution of those events much more clearly and tying that the societal disruption that's coming in on a positive side and students at organizations taking companies and governments to court. That I think it makes me optimistic. The disruption on technology with the cost driving I mean, who would have thought even five years ago that you would have the the phasing out of the internal combustion engine? I mean, who here would have thought that? And now we're we're at that point. And the economic one too. So, you know, lots of disruption. And I think that's the opportunity. And is it and is the other extreme climate events that we are seeing? Is it are they clearly being linked to the problems that we've been talking about of climate change? Yes, because there's still a lot of climate change deniers, not least the President of the United States, but there are others. Yeah, there's there's not I think that that's I think a thing I think we just put in the corner because I think the vast majority of scientists around the world understand this. And I think only 99%. Yeah, 99%. Thank you, Vice President. I think the thing to know about the science, which is very important right now, I think also for people here at Davos is work that's happening at Oxford University Union of Concerned Scientists that is looking at attribution and the link. They are the science has just gotten much more sophisticated and the ability to link actually those events with almost like if you're a baseball player, and you're taking steroids, right? Those events, that's what's happening right now. And the science is solid there. So if I were a corporation, I would be looking at that body of knowledge. All right, Arun Mahendra, where are we at? When you go to the climate action, you know, summit and you're going to be talking out there and saying what is it that needs to be done? How bad is the crisis and to what extent is a step up needed? You know, my definition of an impossible task is being asked to summarize where are we after Vice President Gore? You know, I mean, he's the first and the last word on this. So I don't want to answer the question, where are we? He just did that. But you asked me what I'm going to do, especially at the global climate action summit. My main task as a crude capitalist is to dismiss two myths. First myth is that there is a trade off between choosing to do something to improve climate and your growth or your profits. Everything that our group of companies have done to try and improve energy or to reduce greenhouse gases has actually given us a return. In the last five years, for example, we've saved 58 million kilowatt hours of energy, which could fire up 15,000 homes in India. But that saved us money. We've turned water positive in our group. We've saved 36% of the water that we use as opposed to since 1912. But that's not because we did it as good Samaritans. That's brought us profits. So we have to dispel the fact that there's a trade off, that you're ticking a box off for CSR. And the second myth I want to dispel again related to the fact that this is not ticking the box. I think we have to keep drumming the message that climate change is in fact the next century's biggest financial and business opportunity. Why are we constantly asked, what are you going to do? What is your do-gooder? What will you do to keep up access finance to you? We don't need that stick. There is going to be a $6 trillion opportunity over the next two decades when technology changes, just as it did when it first moved from the buggy to the car, whole new ecosystems fill up, new appliances, retrofitting of technology, leveraging new technology. I mean, it's you can wake up one morning and suddenly somebody tells you, there's an entirely new universe of business opportunity. Why on earth are we talking about this as a compulsion or a burden? That's the message I want to give wearing the hat I have. So Resalat, when you're looking at that, when you're talking about the trade off, so is that one change that has started to come when we are looking at where we are on this right now, that countries also starting to recognize that it's not entirely a trade off. He's talking about the trade off for a corporation. For a country also, it's not entirely a trade off. You can do something about climate change without necessarily derailing development. I mean, in Bangladesh, for example, is that realization coming? One of the countries that might be the worst affected if you actually do have, you know, a rise in sea levels. Yeah, thank you Vikram. And great to be here. And I appreciate the forum for giving youth an opportunity to engage in this debate. So for countries like Bangladesh, it is very important because, as you know, like one of the most repeated statements is Bangladesh is the most vulnerable country to climate change. And if you look at the sea level rise kind of figures, the estimates that scientists have put out, you see that there's still significant levels of uncertainty there. But between 20 percent to one third of the country could go underwater. And we are a country that has over 160 million people. So just in terms of that reality that cannot be contradicted, like that is the reality that we live in. Now you talked about technology and I do think that technological shift is happening where now countries like Bangladesh countries that have still have challenges to do with energy access, they can actually leapfrog these previous technologies of the previous century and actually go on to new technologies like renewable energy, solar, wind and so on and really address this challenge head on. Because when you're making investment decisions about these coal power plants and so on, you're essentially making decisions for the next 50 years. These are infrastructural decisions. So, you know, and right now all over the world coal power plants are being shut off. So what does that tell us about whether this is a good decision? So the technology now exists to enable countries to realize you don't have to necessarily trade it up. No one saying live without electricity. Just have electricity of a slightly different type, not coal-fired but renewable. Use solar and sort of something else, have electric vehicles and sort of, you know, the internal combustion engine. That's an interesting point. Obviously, I just want to come to the extreme weather events to some extent because when we're talking about the trade-offs and where we are, how do you look at that? Because for insurance companies, this must be increasingly becoming a nightmare. As you have more and more extreme weather events, look at all that's happened in the United States alone in the last some years and unkind people were saying it's karma to some extent, which is really unkind. But even here at Davos, it's the worst snowfall that you've seen in a long period of time. Is this something you're factoring into all your calculations that climate change is starting to have its impact in extreme weather events and it's going to really affect insurance companies as much as anyone else? Yeah, absolutely right. Today, it's already a reality that this is impacting and it makes our pricing more and more difficult, but today it's still insurable. I think if you go much further to 2020-2030, we can clearly say that a scenario between three and four degrees is not insurable anymore. Your basement shop in New York, your basement shop in Mumbai will at this point not be insurable anymore. And this is something we need to figure in and to my mind, we have done a lot, but the glass is only half full and not half empty, but only half full. We really need to go further and to my mind, it really needs both sides. It needs the governments to really take a very proactive attitude when it comes to investing into new technologies. So as an insurer, for example, I am looking at things in a long-term perspective, 20-30 years, but today I don't have enough incentives from a regulatory perspective to really go into infrastructure. I would love to do more. At the same time, I do believe that businesses need to seed, as you said earlier, as a business opportunity. And in my case, it's pretty simple. I have a good return potentially from investing into coal. I have lots of claims of having all these consequences. If you make this equation, you'll end up with a negative result. So for us, it was very clear, and I used it as a business opportunity, having a little bit less on the investment pays out significantly on having less claim is being able to provide insurance still. And I would really like this to penetrate into other business areas. And when we put out the first chunk of green investments of 3 billion, we calculate this over six years because we thought nobody would take it. It was gone within two years. So the demand is there. Vikram, I would like to commend Thomas and Aksa from divesting all of their coal investments. That's genuine leadership in the business community. Thank you. You had previously divested from oil sands. Significantly, the largest sovereign national wealth fund in the world, the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, whose income came entirely from oil and gas in the North Sea, has just announced that it is 100% divesting from all oil and gas assets. Why? Thomas gave us one of the reasons. But these carbon assets are now becoming stranded. You remember the subprime mortgage crisis? So many millions of mortgages that were actually worthless, but people didn't realize it quickly enough. And it caused the great recession. Now we have a subprime carbon bubble. Two thirds of the existing carbon reserves can not be burned. Yet they're marked to market on the books of sovereigns and multinationals. At what point will they realize they're actually worthless? I don't know when that realization will occur, but it will, and it will occur within the time span relevant to long term investors. But if I may say one more thing, Anand is one of the co-sponsors of the crucially important California summit meeting in September. I would like to challenge you gently, Anand. You have done so much. Can you lead the way with business at that California summit by announcing some higher aspiration and commitment? I have to tell you, Vikram, in a sense, Vice President and I have set you up. We're going to use this panel that you're doing to actually issue a call to action. Thank you, Vice President. Vice President is referring to the Global Climate Action Summit in September led by Jerry Brown, the governor of California. I'm a co-chair and I have been requested and very willingly exceeded to issue a call to action first to my own colleagues and my company, I commit that all Mahindra Group companies, all of us in our group, every company will commit to the Paris Agreement. What I'd also like to say is that all of our companies will commit to the science-based targets initiative. If you don't know about that, look it up. But I think it's the one way in which every company in the world can find a roadmap, a very quantitative roadmap in how they're going to contribute to meeting the Paris goals and to getting climate change to be restricted to 2% global warming. There are metrics, there are methodologies. 300 companies have committed, two out of my own group, companies the highest emitters have already committed. I would like to issue a call to action that lets all work on this so that by the time we reach the summit, 500 companies will have committed. I hope that meets your approval. Thank you. Fantastic leadership. Thank you. I'm sorry for setting you up. This is a good problem to have. Now can I get anybody else feel free? Not just on the panel, anyone? If I may build on that call to action, I just want to take a step back for a second on the business case that was made and just ask a question first to the audience and everyone here raised your hands if you have children. Grandchildren too. Okay, so that's even better. So I saw the majority of fans go up here at Davos. And I just want to take a step back and frame the situation that we're in, in a bigger picture. Throughout my life I'm 27 right now, turning 28 very soon. Essentially, the previous generation of decision makers have failed us, have failed our generation. And I'm not sugarcoating this. I think you have already failed us through the inaction from the previous generation. And the next three years from 2018 to 2020, that's the time that you have to redeem yourselves. That is the message to the previous generation of decision makers. Because Mission 2020, which is initiated by Cristiana Figueres, who is the head of the UNFCCC has those science based targets that we need to really bend the curve in the next three years. And three years to redeem yourself. It's a quite a powerful challenge. Okay, so you know, I'm going to come to the countries, but seeing as we've started off on the businesses, let's just look at that. That's sort of a challenge. Is it something that you think Jennifer could actually spread more and more companies coming out, groups coming out, insurance companies coming, there's a we know we mean business coalition is already in a large number of companies are coming up and joining it. Is this one of the ways that you see that challenge can actually be met? Yes. And the redemption the risada was talking. If the action comes quickly, that's the key. That's the key. And that it's at scale. Because I think what we're seeing is a lot of good action, a lot of good words. But it can't be incremental anymore. That's the thing. So this disruption, and I completely agree with you, I feel like there's this space that's opened up for economic development for people that can be stepped into by companies and by governments, but by companies, particularly for your shareholders, but also for the more importantly from my perspective for the planet. So it has to be big enough. And that's what we'll look at to see, okay, great to see the momentum. But you know, we just came from a meeting about deforestation. Last year, an area the size of New Zealand was deforested, right? We're not winning on deforestation. And so there the tropical forest alliance needs to step it up and they need to go big as well. So I think it's possible. We welcome it. We want to see the big actions. And I think, you know, I also just quickly, I want to just say on the impact side of things, the insurance part is very important and to see what's insured losses and uninsured losses. The piece that I think is also a big power shift. If you look at what New York did last week, right, they basically are saying we can't pay for these impacts that come from Hurricane Sandy. Our people in New York can't pay for that. Who is going to pay for that? They have issued a court case against five oil companies to say based on that attribution science, we can't pay for that. They should pay for that. And that's that push and pull, right? That needs to go on. And the responsibility that I think is expected and needed from young people, from from everybody. So yes, on big action. But you know, let's let's it's real. It's really real now just to add a number to what you're saying, this protection gap between what is insured and what is not insured is 100 billion. And it's mostly on the shoulders of the state, as you say. And just to build on the comment on the young people, Vice President Gore mentioned the divestment that that has happened. I just want to point out that divestment was a movement that started only a few years ago. It was only five or six years ago. And it started largely because of students mobilizing across college campuses. And I see youth having a fundamental role. They have, I believe they have three components, like they have a very clear moral clarity of this crisis for a generation. They have the disruptive energy to drive this change. And they can also have bring the technological savvy to to share knowledge and build these networks. And that's what has led to big actions to evolve over time. And you've shown that, for example, in your in your campaign against a coal plant in Bangladesh, which you were able to actually get stopped. No, unfortunately, not. You're referring to the Rampal coal plant that's being built next to the but what it is, is any chance it is. We are still hearing from the authorities that they may or may not be. So right now, construction is actually going on. And I just want to take this moment to highlight the link because this is being seen in NTV by Indians across the world. I just want to highlight the connection of the Rampal coal plant to India. Well, firstly, Shundhuban is a heritage. It's a world heritage site. It's the largest mangro forest in the world. And it's shared by Bangladesh and India. And if you haven't been there, it's an incredible place. It's a spiritual connection that you feel. And it's been driven at the highest levels from India. At the beginning, it was a 50 50 coalition between the NTPC, the National Thermal Power Corporation and the Bangladesh Power Development Board. Then came on the engineering and procurement contract was then signed by Bharat Heavy Electricals and then came on Exim Bank providing two billion dollars of funding to underwrite the project. And finally, now we're hearing that coal India is in line to supply four million tons of coal annually. And we're hearing that India is potentially looking at Bangladesh as a as a market for lower quality polluting coal. So that's a very difficult position to be in for Bangladesh. And I just want to highlight and make an appeal to Indians, civil society businesses, as well as the Indian. So you shouldn't shift pollution from one country to the other. I think that's an important point. Can I just build on that for a moment, Vikram? I want to thank Rizalat and his colleagues for the fantastic work they've been doing doing. But I want to to the extent it's possible to shine the spotlight of the world on this particular struggle. Maybe it is not a lost cause. Jennifer talked about deforestation. This involves deforestation. It is next to the last remaining Tiger Preserve in Bangladesh. It is being subsidized governments in India and in Bangladesh and elsewhere are forcing their taxpayers to subsidize this existential threat to our civilization. Bangladesh is the most threatened nation in the world by global warming. It has fantastic reserves for solar and wind which is now providing much cheaper electricity than burning coal. But special interests there have been reports well I won't get into the stories about corruption. But there are special interests that are driving this process in a way that harms our future. And it's so obviously wrong. The world as a whole, let me make this point, is forcing taxpayers to subsidize the burning of coal gas and oil at a rate 38 times larger than the meager subsidies to speed up the deployment of solar and wind. It is an atrocity. And if the world with China spotlight as you say on Indian consciousness of how they're being forced to subsidize this destruction of the Sunderbands then maybe there is a chance for a rising consciousness to say no, lots of coal plants have been shut down in the US even in India. And so why would Bangladesh make this decision unless it's driven by other factors? So I mean, yeah, you had a maybe I remember you had a rather heated argument in a discussion with the Prime Minister of Bangladesh. I'm glad I did. And she should be all accountable for this. All right, maybe remember that particular encounter. Perfect occasion to shift our focus I think to what nations need to do and countries need to do. And I do want to get governor Inslee in on this as well because let's let's rewind three or four years back, you know, when you were looking at having that competing at Copenhagen and others was essentially the developing world saying and the emerging market saying you guys did the pollution. We're not even the highest per capita producer. I mean, India, for example, has been saying we're the lowest per capita emitters in the world. So why do we need to do anything? You are the people who should take on the ownership of cleaning it up. It was pretty much emerging markets versus the developed markets and who should do more and who should be accountable. That debate seems to have changed a little bit. And it's interesting that you are seeing both India and China almost stepping up to take a leadership role. The Prime Minister of India was here, you know, as I said, just fantastic speech saying that no, we need to do more about it. Is that dialogue and debate changing now a little bit? And it's interesting that just as China and India are stepping up and saying we will do more. The United States, which is actually the country which is probably the most critically insufficient actionless. If you see the climate action tracker, the U.S. is at that end of the spectrum of what it is doing. It's recanted on its Paris commitment. Well, well, legally, it can't leave until 2020. We're going to meet and exceed our commitments. And, you know, the world has changed in the last 10 years. The growth of China, the emerging growth in India, many other countries actually more than two thirds of the global warming pollution is now coming from developing countries. That's not blame shifting at all. It is indeed the developed countries that created this problem. But it is a global problem and it must be solved by everyone. One of the other changes in the world with globalization has been unfortunately, taxpayers in the wealthy countries are feeling poorer than they are and are feeling less willing to provide foreign aid, ODA. But the developing countries have become increasingly aware that as a non-set this is the greatest business opportunity in all of history and private investment is flowing if the barriers are removed to the deployment of renewable energy batteries. We're at the early stages of a global sustainability revolution that is based on hyper efficiency driven by the Internet of Things and machine learning and artificial intelligence. It has the magnitude of the industrial revolution, but the speed of the digital revolution and it is creating astonishing new ability to manage electrons, atoms and molecules with the precision IT companies have used in managing bits and smart businesses are taking advantage of this and discarding the illusions based on the past and rushing toward what the new generation is demanding. They want to work for companies that have a purpose that share their values are committed to saving the future of human civilization and businesses can thrive and prosper and are doing so by committing to this brighter, hopeful future. If you look at a country like India, which has says we are among the lowest per capita emitters who we don't really need to take on the burden of this. And earlier, there used to be a talk for technology transfer and money transfer and help finance this. The fact that that has changed and you're having the Prime Minister, for example, we need to come in saying we will do what we what we need to do. Is it also partly because the technology is changing and therefore countries like India are recognizing that we can have a solar path. We can put this 175 gigahertz, you know, gigawatts of solar electricity, which means we don't have to give up on development. We can be clean and develop at the same time. What I said earlier, it can clearly confirms what you said. But let me say, first of all, I think even if technology is changing and helping this change, and this is a big opportunity, we should not abandon the argument of pointing out that there is an issue for the countries that did pollute the planet earlier. I mean, I want to make that clear. I am one of the champions of saying let's not pass the buck. But I do get worried when I see the biggest per capita emitters moving into the background. That's not on. So we need to keep that in focus. Having said that, yes, I'm confirming to you that technology is a game changer. But it's not an invisible hand if I have to use Adam Smith's old term. It's not as if we're going to wake up and find that technology has suddenly cured everything. There have to be people who are going to use that technology. We're going to push it. If you look at China today, 750,000 vehicles were sold. Half of them were in China, not because they're economically at this point feasible or viable or attractive because a Chinese government is making it happen. So as we move towards these new technologies, we do need governments to nudge us along. That's what I would say. Yeah. His point is you can't and we should not entirely do away with those arguments to say that the people who have the historical responsibility and who are still by far the largest per capita emitters still need to do their fair share. And today, if you look at the actions that are coming, those countries are still not doing what they need to do. I completely agree. And I actually want to shine a spotlight right now on Europe and particularly on Germany because today negotiations begin for a new German government and Germany has the largest coal fleet in Europe. It's like this secret that people don't know about. And they have to commit to phase out coal by 2030. They have to do this. Absolutely. And they have to do it in a way that brings workers, has a just transition for workers because I think the pace that we need to make this change happen, it needs to be a compact with government with the companies. So a company like RWE needs to be part of that and needs to make their responsibility and the local communities that are there as well. So I think, you know, it's great to have President Merkel and Chancellor Merkel come here and talk about this. But the action at home that Germany needs to do on that phase out, the action that France needs to do on renewable energy and then to lift it up in these three years, Europe has to get its mojo back. Like now, it has to get its mojo back because of the great leadership on the state level in the United States is fantastic. But without the White House and in fact going in completely the opposite insane direction, that's what we need. So fantastic coming from India. But if we don't get that kind of decision coming, so we need your help. We need to weigh in with Chancellor Merkel and in Germany in the next weeks. Right. So I mean, I'm going to come to the United States and get Cummins being on that as well. But Europe, if you look at the per capita emissions and where the historic emissions have come from, Europe very clearly shares a large share of the we shouldn't get into a blame game, but perhaps we do have to to some extent. And the actions being taken right now, Europe still not not sufficient. Now, I fully agree. Look, I think what is important is that yes, governments need to act. Yes, governments need to clear the way. But at the end of the day, the market mechanism needs to lead the way. And that's why when we talk about divestment, for example, we have to also accompany the existing players because there's many of them that are not that evil, that want to change and therefore helping them to change and directing the investment in the areas where the change is happening. I think it's extremely important not to have an abrupt stop of it, but to also ensure that the safety of energy for our country. And I guess this is the issue that Germany and since I'm German have to comment now is struggling with and you have to find a pragmatic balance. But I think the market mechanism of directing the right investments and we have done this. I mean, we have put out 12 billion for green investments. We have gone out of call. We are not in short call anymore. And you can see, you can see that the demand is shifting. The market is working. And I think what needs to happen more and more is that we also need to have a better reporting on this. It is actually relatively easy to tie back the two degree scenario to what it means for your investments. How do you need to shift your investment over time is not so difficult. And therefore, I'm pushing a lot the question around climate-related financial disclosure, which then puts more pressure again from a market perspective onto the public to really go in that direction. Vikram, can I make just a quick point? We've been talking about model imperatives, about market mechanisms. I want to pick up on a point Vice President made about purpose. There's another real advantage companies were going to get out of this. What do we do as CEOs? We try to make our people come to work every day, come for something more than just improving earnings per share. It's the biggest job today, cultural change, getting people to come with passion, getting millennials to come to work for us. You have no idea if you tell people I am morally committed. I made this challenge not because I'm Mother Teresa. I'm doing this because my people want me to do this. And because when I make that commitment, I attract more talent to my company. There is a benefit to having a purpose-driven corporation. So thank you for bringing that up. If I may prolong that for a second. So you brought up millennials and I think there are over three billion youth in the world right now. I am here as a global shaper with the World Economic Forum's youth community. And if you look at the economic system, like, yes, there's the business case. And yes, that's how the world works. But we also have to think about that for youth in the economic system, our future is considered an externality. That's the term for our future. But that's the youth that start voting for people. Yes. Youth that start voting for people are going to save the planet. But you tell them they're voting for. But I'm talking about a broader shift in the economic system. There's someone here in the audience that I want to highlight. Kate, we had a great conversation. Kate Rawarth is the author of Donut Economics, which is a really brilliant book that came out this year about really shifting that economic mindset. Like, what are we doing with the economy? Really, are we staying within planetary boundaries and are we trying to help people rather than simply focusing on the market and the growth? All right. I just want to turn my attention out to back back to the United States. Governor Inslee, I have to say it's a privilege to have you with us because you're one of the people who has taken the leadership to say, all right, if the federal government is not doing something and the president is going in a certain direction, states will take it upon themselves. And you've been trying very hard to push a carbon tax which we sincerely hope you'll be able to get through later this year. Could you tell us about some of the efforts that are being taken in the United States to make sure that those commitments are met in some way? The states are able to do with the central. Please, please, please. Keep sitting and talking. Thank you. You're afraid I'll go on forever. I noticed that. That's it. I can do that, by the way. Listen, I will answer that question. But first off, there's a challenge on the floor that has to be met. We have a great young leader from a younger generation from Bangladesh who has challenged one billion baby boomers to get off the dime and not leave a legacy of the destruction of this planet behind the age of Aquarius. And I want to tell you on behalf of one billion baby boomers, I am authorized to commit that we are not going to allow that to happen. And we are going to make sure we solve this problem. And I'm going to go back tomorrow to work on this, OK? And I'm serious about this. Look, I'm going back Monday. I'm going to meet my legislature. We need a carbon tax in my state. It will be the first carbon tax in the United States to create an investment pool to help these businesses develop. That is a common sense measure. But it is a moral responsibility. Now, I've come to Davos to just bring a dose of hope to this place. And I think there's three reasons we ought to have a big dose of hope. Number one, when the president arrives here today, do not be shocked if he looks around at five feet of snow and says, I guess there's no climate change, because look at all this snow. But I want to point out that since he announced that he wanted to take us out of Paris and the vice president is right, we're not out yet. We won't be until there's another president. We're going to have another shot at this. Not one single nation state province or city has followed him. There is only one man in this parade. And no one has followed him in this regard. And this is great news and we should celebrate it. Since he made this announcement, three Republican governors have joined what Governor Brown of California and Iowa started, United States Climate Alliance. We have 15 states now, including three Republicans who've committed to the parents accord. And we're all doing our best to make sure that happens. And by the way, this alliance is not a small thing. It represents 40% of the United States economy. 40% of the United States economy is in effect in the Paris Agreement and acting. We would be the third largest economy in the world if we were a separate nation. And I'm not suggesting that at the moment. So the message in Davos is, we're here. We're not given up. The United States Climate Alliance is still on the move. And the reason is this is happening is because this is a tipping point, as the vice president described. It's a tipping point where in the same week in Seattle where the Cascade Mountains were on fire, and ash was falling on Seattle under the hoods of people's cars and it's never happened before in the history of Seattle, people could see visually what is happening in their own lives. At the same time, we realize that we have the Western Hemisphere's largest manufacturer of carbon fiber that's going into electric cars. So this is a tipping point moment. That's why the politics is changing so dramatically in the United States. And the last thing I want to say, I'm so optimistic, we finally have Al Gore showing a little passion on this subject. So I'm very happy. Thank you, Mr. Vice President. I appreciate your leadership. I think, I think, Vice President Gauri, if I could just ask you, you're taking off from that the fact that you've been displaying so much passion on this subject. Has it sometimes become a liberal versus conservative issue in the United States? Is that part of it that certain people will say, we're going to be climate change deniers just because Al Gore feels strongly on the subject? No, well, the liberals feel strongly on the subject. I mean, is that at all the possibility? No, I don't think so at all. And in fact, there's been extensive social science research in the US that definitively disproves that meme. You know, in my home state of Tennessee, there's an old saying that if you see a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be pretty sure it did not get there by itself. When you see the persistently high levels of climate denial in the United States, unique and among all nations, you can also be pretty sure that didn't happen by itself. The coal companies, coal burning utilities, oil and gas companies, some of them, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars pursuing the same blueprint that was innovated by the tobacco companies decades ago when they were faced with an existential threat to their business. They hired actors and dressed them up as doctors and put them on television to falsely say, I'm a doctor and there are no health problems associated with smoking cigarettes. That's what they have been doing with a huge amount of money. They've created a major cottage industry of climate denial. But you know what? They're losing badly. The percentage of people over two-thirds who agree with the science that we have to do something has been steadily increasing, a majority of Republican voters, a plurality of Trump supporters agree with the science, agree that we have to do something. And there is a major new participant in this debate who is more persuasive even than Jay Inslee. And that's Mother Nature. Because these climate-related extreme events, every night on the TV news is like a nature hike through the Book of Revelation. People are connecting the dots on their own. Governor Inslee, are they connecting the dots? Or when you see a snowstorm, exactly what you said that President Trump might do when he gets out here, there are extreme snowstorms in the US for the last month, month and a half. There were hurricane after hurricane coming in, you know, in the last summer. Are people in the United States connecting the dots and saying something seems to be happening to climate? You cannot overstate how rapidly this is happening. And it's both frustrating and energizing in this regard. Because when the vice president started to try to educate the world and he personally has educated the world, you cannot overstate his impact in this regard. But when he started decades ago, and I asked him to come to talk to my Congress, and he had incredible graphs, persuasive parts per million presentations in ocean acidification and pH levels. And these graphs were extremely impressive to me because, you know, I'm interested in science. But this is not Al Gore's graph anymore. It is ash on the hoods of the cars in Seattle that people have never seen before. Now, a visual image in a person's life is 10,000 more times more mind-changing than any graph ever invented. And that is going on. That's what I'm talking about. You mentioned this issue of Democrats and Republicans. We are starting to see the potential cracking of this wall in the Republican Party. And this is a very beneficial thing. It's very interesting. Eight Republicans in California voted for Jerry Brown's cap and trade system. And I went and met them and I asked them, why are they doing this? And the leader of the Senate said it was simple. Our party, we concluded, was going to go extinct if we didn't pull our heads out of the sand and had our tail feathers out in the air anymore and start to get involved in this solution. And why? It's because this generation that's coming up behind us is 99% in favor of doing something about this. So if you want to have a viable political party, you need to start engaged in the solution. And that's why it's starting to happen. And that's some of the best news about this issue right now. But paradoxically, the fact that we are starting to see some of the actual impact of climate change is one thing for Vice President Gore to be having to be saying inconvenient truth is about to happen. But as he's saying, when you actually start to see it in your daily life, that's when political pressure starts to build up on governments also to say, hang on, if you're not going to fix this, then I'm going to vote for you. And that's when governments start to act. Yeah, absolutely. And I mean, if I were, if I could speak with each leader at Davos, I would just implore them to connect those dots, internalize it, internalize it as a human being. Because I think the people are starting to connect those dots. That's why you're seeing court cases. That's, and the desperation in some ways. Because especially youth are, they see that it's their future. But every leader here at Davos has to connect those dots. Some of them are. Some of them are. But I don't think the majority are. And that's where the pace and the scale of change is needed. That's where we have to step it up. Because if we don't step it up, we'll have these nice incremental things. But it's not going to cut it. Could I just add one thing? We had one and a half meters of rain in Houston, Texas, the center of the global petrochemical industry. Puerto Rico is still devastated four months after another hurricane. We've had the worst fires in the history of California. Mudslides killing people. And the same week that Houston was under water, almost a third of Bangladesh was under water from the extra increment of the downpours of the monsoons. Now here's the point. The scientists predicted all of this. They told us this was coming. The fact that their predictions have been proven correct should cause any reasonable and sane person to pay sufficient attention to their predictions now about what is going to happen if we don't stop using the sky as an open sewer and dumping 110 million tons of heat trapping pollution into it every single day. The cumulative amount there now traps as much extra heat energy in the earth system every day as would be released by 400,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs going off every day. It's a big planet, but that is a lot of energy. And it is disrupting the ecological system of the earth upon which the flourishing of humanity depends. Our generation cannot say to Resilat's generation, we just, it was just too hard for us. We couldn't think clearly about it because we were tweeting or because we were playing games or we were watching Dancing with the Stars. We have a moral obligation. We have a business imperative. We have a political responsibility. And I'm sorry, I'm getting passionate again. I'm sorry, I'm getting passionate again. I'm sorry, I'm getting passionate again. I'm sorry, I'm getting passionate again. I'm sorry, I'm getting passionate again. Please, I think on behalf of all of us here and on behalf of the planet, please keep getting passionate about it. It's really required. If I can highlight the human dimension of that. Just last month, I was in Bangladesh and I was at my brother's home where I met this woman who works in their home as a helper. And she was telling me that in the rains that you were referencing, her family lost all of her crops and it was record rainfall that hadn't happened in the last 35 years. And that is the human element, like because she was from a pretty affluent family in her village, but she had to out of desperation to support her family come to the city and work in people's homes. So that's the individual dimension of like millions of lives that I actually have. And you can multiply that, you can multiply that story hundreds and thousands of times, maybe millions of times. And if you're not careful, we'll be multiplying it a billion times or more if we don't do something wrong. Just to finish that thought, your point about your generation's responsibility, I can guarantee you that if you don't meet this challenge in the next three years, well, may your children find it in their hearts to forgive you. Yeah. All right, Anand, just wanna shift focus to one other area of possible hope, right? Which is technological change, technology to some extent did this to us with, you know, carbon, coal-fired plants and, you know, oil and gas and the rest of it. Could technology solve it? For example, many countries in India included China saying that we're gonna phase out all oil and gas vehicles by a certain point of time. No more fossil fuels will be used in cars. It'll all be electric. You're one of the largest, you know, vehicle manufacturers. Is that something which you see happening? And could that sort of a change really save the planet? We just won't have the internal combustion engine by 2030. We will not have coal-fired plants because it's cheaper and easier and simpler to go sooner or something else. You know what? It's funny, at a recent IT conference a year ago, NASCom in India, I was asked this question in a different context and I was asked, will technology save the world? I have to tell you, despite all technological leaps, you know who saved the world? It's poets. It's poets who still save the world. It's people who get out on campuses and protest. You talked about protest, marches, Vice President Erdogan, I was a student in the US when the biggest protest marches started against investment in South Africa, the anti-apartheid movement. And the Harvard endowment was the target of this because they were major investors and I watched as we were young people and we were protesting and that made the difference. I mean, there's no analogy there. All I'm trying to tell you is yes, technology is an enabler. It's a facilitator. That's why we've invested in electric cars. When we did that some years ago, people were wondering why we're doing it. It's not gonna make money, it's stupid. I don't think we are being called stupid anymore. We're still not making money on it, but we are not being called stupid anymore. We are called visionary. So we are making a bet on technology. But at the end of the day, thank God for your system, Vice President, in America of liberal arts. Because the liberal arts are the ones that generate the poets who will make the protest, who will call out the scenarios and force us to change direction. Technology is an enabler. Right, but Mr. Burban, is it possible, for example, that investors, companies, fund managers, endowments, insurers will say, we're gonna bet more and more money. We're gonna put real money behind solar, electric vehicles or what have you. Make sure that the technology continues to accelerate. Let solar cell prices continue to crash. Let battery technology improve dramatically. And somewhere along the way, a by-product will be that the planet could get saved. Is that a scenario that you're seeing? It is possible, but I think two things are needed. One is the question of decision. I want to go back to what the Vice President said. We are always looking at statistics and projecting from the past. I mean, the actual insurance that says his or her business. We need to shift and look more at what big data tells us in a very different way. And there we see, it is foreseeable what will happen. I think having that conscience is extremely important and also relating it back to people's life. What in your life changes tomorrow if x, y, z happens. And I think the second thing is on the investment side. Yes, it's relatively easy. I mean, there's a market today for many investment opportunities and you have the choice. But today people do not make the right choices because they don't link this opportunity of climate change to the nuisance of having a little bit of less return. And I do believe that we need to push in the public opinion. That's why I like your view about protesting. That needs to really push us. If you look, we were the first one. I was hoping that a week later, I would see another colleague, another colleague following. What has happened? It took two years. And it's sad to see that. And my big question is, how can the public pressure rise when somebody has done something to say, look, why if these guys are doing it, why can't you do it? Right. Governor Inslee, on that question of technology because that entire West Coast is where a lot of innovation is happening in Washington itself. But also in California, you're seeing companies like Tesla saying that our entire corporate mission is almost to find the technologies that will help accelerate that transition. Do you see technology playing a major role? Yes. And we believe in technology fundamentally in my state. We invented the first commercial successful jet airline, Air Boeing, the 707. We invented the world's best software, Microsoft. We even invented the $4 cup of coffee. We're very innovative in the state of Washington. So we prize technology, but you've got to understand, it cannot solve this alone just on a matter of pace. We have to change and decarbonize the world's economy at a pace that cannot wait for the great inventions that might otherwise occur over a century that need to occur over a decade or so. And that's why we have to have public policy to drive investment into these new technological solutions so that the next brilliant person with the next generation of photovoltaic cells can start out of their basement and expand rapidly. And that's why we have a Clean Energy Fund in Washington to do that. So it does require governmental activity. And for those who don't like government, I understand that, but here's the bottom line thing I believe. What we treasure individually, we can only save collectively. And that's the fundamental concept here. And that's why we need some public policy here. Right. Jennifer, can I get you to weigh in on that on the technological aspect? Yeah, absolutely. I'm also not willing to bet the planet on technology development. It is an abler. It is a part of it. And we need long, loud, and legal signals. The technology development that happened today didn't just happen. I mentioned Germany before on the coal side. Well, on renewables, the Fiedin tariff drove that innovation. China scaled it on an unplanned partnership in a way to drive down those prices. So and the other piece I want to bring in is local and people and indigenous people and other sectors that technology is not going to solve. I mentioned forestry before. But if you look at agriculture, if you look at forestry, it's as big of a polluter as transportation is. And I think often in these climate discussions, we forget that. It's hard. But it's also an area where supporting indigenous peoples to protect their lands and making sure they keep those lands is also a big part of that solution. And giving people the agency to be engaged and protest and say, we are resisting. We are resisting. And we're not only resisting, we're part of the solution. So help us be part of that solution and make that easy. Right. Vice President Gore, I'm going to leave it to you and please do feel free to get passionate. Just a word on the technology front. I agree with what's been said. It cannot save us by itself. It is a source of hope. It is going to be enormously helpful. But it cannot absolve us from the responsibility to change policy. The new LED light bulbs are amazing. But more important than changing the light bulbs is changing the policies, changing the laws. The world subsidized fossil fuel last year to the tune of $5.3 trillion. In many jurisdictions around the world, the fossil lobbies got legislatures that they have figured out how to influence. And I'll let others connect those dots legally. Unfortunately, some of it not in a good way. But they have gotten lawmakers to put up obstacles to the installation of solar and wind. Now, the cost differential is getting so big that they're not going to be able to hold it back for very long. This year, we are likely to see contracts for solar electricity at 1 cent per kilowatt hour, way below the cost of burning coal. So we have these amazing new tools. And people remember what happened with computer chips, Moore's Law. They remember what happened with cell phones that became smartphones. It's amazing, flat screen TVs. The great news is that renewable energy technology, electric vehicles, batteries, all kinds of efficiency improvements, they are following that same technological pattern. But we have to make a decision to use these magnificent new tools and to remove the obstacles that the legacy companies that want to keep us in the past are putting up to the implementation of these tools. And to wrap this up, 2020 is the key date. 2018 is the beginning of this two-year cycle where we need to convince every country in the world, all of whom have signed the Paris Agreement, to review their commitments and increase their commitments, convince them to look at what is now possible, convince them to respond to the rising generation, and convince them to save humanity's future. We can do it. And the primary reason I'll say again is that the will to change is a renewable resource itself. The will to change is a renewable resource. The perfect line to end this on. Thank you all so much for having joined us. Thank you all for the efforts that you individually and collectively are putting into saving the planet. And let's hope you succeed. Thank you all so much. Thank you very much.